The Supreme Court of Ohio sits at the apex of the state court system. Unlike the intermediate Courts of Appeals, the Ohio Supreme Court does not review every case that comes before it. Jurisdiction is largely discretionary — the court chooses which cases to hear, and it chooses based on whether a case presents a question of law that is substantial, constitutional, or of public or great general interest.
Reaching that threshold requires more than showing that a lower court made an error. It requires framing the issue as one that matters beyond the parties in the case — a question whose answer will shape Ohio law going forward. That kind of appellate writing demands precision, command of the court's jurisprudence, and a clear understanding of how courts of last resort decide what to decide.
Moran & Fisher, Attorneys at Law, LLC, brings more than 500 cases written and argued across Ohio's appellate courts to this practice, and the firm's command of Ohio criminal law and constitutional doctrine is the foundation of every Ohio Supreme Court submission it prepares.
When the Ohio Supreme Court Has Jurisdiction
The Ohio Supreme Court will generally accept jurisdiction over a criminal appeal when the case presents at least one of the following:
- A constitutional question — a federal or state constitutional issue that the courts below have decided inconsistently or decided incorrectly in a way that requires the Supreme Court's correction.
- A conflict between Courts of Appeals — when two or more Ohio appellate districts have reached different conclusions on the same legal question, the Supreme Court may accept jurisdiction to resolve the conflict and establish a uniform rule of law.
- A significant question of Ohio law — an unresolved or important question of Ohio criminal statute, sentencing law, or procedure that the Supreme Court has not yet addressed.
- Death penalty cases — the Ohio Supreme Court has mandatory jurisdiction over death-penalty appeals under Ohio law.
How the Process Works
After the Ohio Court of Appeals rules, a party seeking Supreme Court review files a notice of appeal and a memorandum in support of jurisdiction — a concise document that argues why the case meets the court's standards for discretionary review. If the court accepts jurisdiction, the parties then brief the merits. Oral argument before the full seven-justice court may be granted in significant cases.
The memorandum in support of jurisdiction is the first and most critical document. A poorly framed memorandum will not survive the initial screening process. Moran & Fisher approaches each memorandum as an argument for why this case has implications beyond the client — because that is precisely how the Supreme Court evaluates it.
The Dual Trial-and-Appellate Advantage
A lawyer who has tried more than 100 jury trials and more than 300 bench trials, and who has argued hundreds of appeals, understands how trial-court errors arise and how they translate into appellate and Supreme Court arguments. That dual perspective — grounded in the realities of criminal practice and disciplined in the architecture of appellate law — is what Moran & Fisher brings to Ohio Supreme Court matters.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is different.